Someone stop >> folks >> are >> all right. >> Good evening. >> It's plan B. >> Plan B was on plan >> to cry. [laughter]
>> We are live and we have an audience. So I'm going to call the meeting to order. >> Good evening. We are live from uh Boston Public Library. Um and we are doing a very unusual format today that we will fill you in. But
before we do, we're going to do a little bit of roll call from my phone. So, this is the June 2nd monthly meeting of the Boston Civic Design Commission. It's now called to order. My name is Mimi Love, chair of the commission. And I'd like to thank the commissioners for donating
their time, sharing their valuable insights, and shaping the city of Boston into a more beautiful, sustainable, and equitable place for all of its citizens. We are meeting in a hybrid format. We have commissioners in the room and on the line. Um, and the open meeting law
requires that I notify that the public that this meeting is being recorded. So with that, I'm going to call commissioners. Say, please say present when I call your name. Dell Choy, >> present. >> Linda Eastley, >> present.
>> Jonathan Garland, >> present. >> Shauna Villa Smith, >> present. >> David Hassin, >> present. >> Kathy Codoras is not with us this evening. Or Anmarie Lubenau. >> David Manf Freddy is may be coming.
>> Should be. Katherine Morris >> present. >> David Nagahiro >> present. >> Laura Solano >> should be joining us in person. >> Perk Sykes >> present. >> Myself Mimi Love. So
we are I'm going to pass this on to Seth um so he can describe the format of our meeting this evening. >> Great Mimi. Thank you. Uh good evening everyone and thank you for joining us. Uh my name is Seth Ryman, deputy director of design review and executive
director of BCDC at the Boston Planning Department. With no projects on the agenda, this evening's meeting will instead serve as a long requested, desired, dreamed of uh training and training and discussion session uh or
another term uh of your liking uh for the commission. I will dedicate the full time to a couple of informal informational presentations on the article 80 and citywide uh modernization efforts as well as then the BCDC modernization efforts before taking some
time to discuss uh the bylaws, the zoning. Essentially, we're here to uh refresh a little bit about the adventure we've gone down over the last couple years of modernization uh at the planning department, the city, and BCDC.
uh and really try to take stock uh see what's working well, see what could be improved. Uh and if you all remember uh after we incorporated a few things into zoning, we did uh start to operationalize a number of other reforms
that we didn't put into zoning, including drafting bylaws, which were distributed back in August, but we kept those as a draft. Right? I think people wanted to test a lot of the recommendations, test some of the things that were in the bylaws um before uh
actually adopting them. So, our sort of goal here, I think, is to really have a discussion tonight. Obviously, we're in a public forum because we need to do that. Um have a discussion on the uh how things have been going. uh and then ultimately have that lead to a uh staff
uh doing a revision of the bylaws and then bringing them back to you for your consideration and further discussion. Um but to help set the stage in BCDC changes in context of other city changes, I'd like to introduce uh I think you have met him multiple times
before. Uh Kevin Cross. >> Hi. Hi everybody here in person on the phone. Like Seth said, my name is Kevin Crossley. I work in the planning department. My primary role is our lady modernization and uh I have been at a
BCDC meeting I don't know a year or so ago in that capacity to share a little bit about exactly what Seth just said. I'm here today to do a little bit of a refresh and share some extra context of what's been going on in other city departments uh in the meantime. So um I brought a few slides that I'll hopefully
will be briefed. Um but please you know ask questions or or otherwise if um I'm not being clear. So uh first uh on the next slide is just some really big picture context. Uh this is a citywide you know moment uh or opportunity here
to really think hard about the building permit process. Um there is kind of a umbrella um initiative taking place called the permitting transformation initiative that has kind of really picked up steam over the past several
months into in 2026. There is a dedicated website that I linked on the slide. Feel free to go take a look at that. This is a really broad strokes effort at the city to think uh kind of transformationally about just permitting
in general, not just building permits, but all kinds of permits, you know, street occupancy permits or um you know, event permits or things like that. So, um there's a there's a kind of a big some momentum around modernization of permitting generally at the city. The
goals I think should sound familiar to words that we've used in article 80 context and even in in the BCDC context creating something you know more predictable more transparent more efficient that helps us you know deliver great outcomes in a way that you know is makes a bit little bit more sense or is
a bit more legible. So, um, I want to start off by saying this is, you know, I think the work that all of you are doing at BCDC to like think hard about procedures and bylaws and ways to effectively reform your roles is >> it's a question where we're asking kind of everybody in the city right now and
one that I think in a lot of ways like the folks around this table have been thinking about, you know, well in advance of some of these larger citywide conversations. So, in some ways you guys are kind of leading the way. Um so narrowing a little bit uh here into the
article 80 world on the next slide the um article 80 modernization which is what I've been here to talk about most recently just about a year ago uh is um you'll see some repeated words you know predictability uh timely and transparent development youth process kind of our
overarching goal in September of last year we adopted a whole suite of um zoning changes along with the, you know, new article uh 28, former article 28, new article 81 and these draft files. That was part of a larger package of
change that we introduced at that time. And uh since then we have been working um to work better as a staff, work better as a larger, you know, city staff, but also work with other um city commissions and other boards to think
hard about how to make things more predictable and more um uh transparent and time. So to that end, I just pulled out a couple of things that we've been working on. um just so quickly by the numbers. We uh have kind of reformed the pre-file process. So that um we've had
you know 20 plus projects go through a more administrative pre-file that takes less than a month which is a very dramatic change from times and times past where pre-file would be you know six months a year you know kind of who knows how long. Um we've developed a ton of internal tools and templates to try
and create uh clearer and more consistent staff reviews. So, uh, our staff are consistent, you know, from project to project, from staff person to staff person. We have been performing our public meeting procedures and and processes. So, those have been kind of up and running and we're kind of
actively tweaking those things as we go, but all of our public meetings now are has our our staff has had additional training and we have new processes to run those more effectively. And then just by way of um kind of closing on this slide, one thing we're really
working hard to do at the staff level, but frankly citywide is better coordinating city feedback. And I think that's a theme that this group has been talking about a lot in the context of these bylaws is how do we communicate our, you know, requests and our
recommendations clearly and effectively, which is something we're working very hard at at the staff level, the plane department as well. We have new templates and new kind of trainings we've been giving staff to to help do that as well. Uh the next slide talks a little bit more about a couple of those things and I just again wanted to kind
of highlight that the work that all of you are doing in BCDC to you know think about bylaws think about the way that you perform is very much part uh in my mind of this larger effort of culture change we're embarking on. This is something that is challenging not just
our staff but other city departments like I said other city commissions. Um we're all kind of trying to steer a cruise ship is the analogy that I hear a lot. Um so by way of example I mentioned a little bit already. Um we are updating
the way we're asking staff to deliver feedback. We're we're challenging them to be much more direct and to deliver feedback in writing. So, uh, they're working with new templates to to recommend, you know, specific project changes, citing the specific, uh, kind of reason or or guideline or, you know,
city regulation that applies in that case and, um, working across teams to make sure we're not in conflict with each other. Example I like to give is, you know, if we have a particular opinion about the ground floor elevation of a building, we might have like a resilience related reason to raise that up, but also an accessibility reason to
kind of keep that lower. So those types of conflicting elements of feedback are things we're working very hard at the staff level to uh you know problem solve together. Um there are other reform efforts happening. Some of you may be familiar with the TAPO process or transportation impact analysis more
generally in article 80 reviews. You know traffic studies, transportation studies are a big part of the of the project specific analysis that happens. um there is a whole team and a whole consultant effort to overhaul that entire um area of analysis. So um you
can definitely stay tuned for work to to clarify both the way that the department is kind of writing down and codifying tapo agreements but also the methods by which we can conduct that analysis. Um similarly the the world of performance tracking is one that we are
kind of stepping into in a newly uh energized way at the planning department I'd say and one way we're doing that is trying to just like frankly just write down how long stuff takes and write it down at the detailed level. So um I know
this commission has been talking about oh how do we structure how many meetings we have on a project? How can we conduct our review efficiently? This is something we're asking everybody to do in in the article 80 world. Um we are tracking you know specifically when when is the city on the clock when is the
applicant on the clock you know if we have a complete application that's great let's you know do our work let's do our review if we don't let's wait and you know ask them to complete that application. Uh we're tracking you know much more detailed milestones. When is staff works done when is you know manager review be things like that. And
we're setting targets. They're not hard targets yet. they're soft targets but it's a way to just evaluate for ourselves how are things going um how are we doing on these targets and then finally I did want to mention we have been working very hard internally as a staff team to think about what actually
goes into these filing dops at the you know BCDC scale we're in large project review or sometimes even PDA world and um many of these projects have PNFS and we have been working to kind of comprehensively overhaul what what a PNF is what it should include
and how we might provide clearer guidance to project teams so that they know exactly what to draw. Uh so that has taken the form of some uh internal work we're doing right now to create really clear submission checklists, clear like drawing specifications of a
site plan at this scale should include this type of information as well as um clear criteria of what kinds of impact analysis are appropriate for a particular project. So again, all that to say, this is something that everybody is is is working on and and trying to
tackle all in service of the same goal that I think many of you share a predictable, clear, and consistent uh review. So um just by way of kind of one final slide here, this is our very uh
simplified process map. Um but I think it it is trying to communicate of an overarching principle here is that the role the work of all of you and in BCDC the role of design review and the plan department in general are um sprinkled
throughout this overall permit process which is part of our of our role of even just writing this down. So um just by way of sharing my sense of how this works today um starts out pre-file you know um this is a place like I said we've made much more administrative than
that so projects are getting to their filing sooner than earlier in their design um that's when plane department review officially begins that's when BCDC review begins that's where we're really doing like rolling up our sleeves doing the work culminating the BPA board
and then you know other all their other permitting milestones CPA, maybe there's a particular commission involved, public improvement commission, all those other city checks. Uh the plane department maintains a very active role in that process. Um at the staff level to review
all of these materials, confirm they are compliant with furlier guidance. Uh and that role continues like all the way through the building permit and even after all the way through construction and and COO. a kind of a renewed energy and plan department side on compliance
and even doing some site visits in some cases to say like hey okay let's really follow this through to the final delivery of this particular benefit or this particular design feature. So I just want to kind of step back and say you know this is one important part but not the only part of the process where
there is u a lot of attention and and time being spent uh interrogating design and confirming that it's happening in the way that we all want to see it. So um that's my uh part of the presentation today. I'm happy to just pause there and
answer any general questions you have about the work of citywide reform or art modernization. >> And and maybe before we turn it over to questions, just to build on the points you were making on this last slide, uh I know a couple commissioners have asked me, you know, particularly in light of
the reforms that we're doing. Um what happens to a project after BCDC sees it, right? Uh and how has that changed from where we were before? So in sort of practice it it hasn't changed. It's still you know the BCDC final
recommendation happens before uh usually sometimes fairly close to sometimes far from BPDA board vote. Um but after it leaves BCDC, urban design staff and the rest of planning staff still continue to work with the proponent to improve the
project and in this case, you know, carry forth the recommendations that were made by BCDC um before board. Uh we make a certain determination of how much should and can be done before board and is appropriate to do and what can then be done postboard review as projects are
going through DD and CD. Um and this is also when we go into the mix with all the other city departments and requirements and commissions right before ultimately a building permit is issued. And so we are doing more coordination direct coordination with
the staff through the you know pre-board approval that are setting up uh the approaches to set all projects for better uh experiences and for success in uh working with the other departments. It used to be you you got your planning
review and approval and then you know go with God and good luck and all the other commissions. Uh now we're trying to coordinate all of that and do as much as we can up front but of course there's still a lot that has to happen during the post process as design evolves right. Um and then upon building permit
that that still doesn't finish our job. We're still you know for large projects have a mockup that's required. uh we continue to sort of monitor projects, make sure that essentially what was promised ultimately gets delivered. And to Kevin's last point, you know, as part of
this uh sort of deal we're doing uh in terms of increasing our uh efficiency, uh we also want to make sure that what is promising uh during the process does get delivered. So we're also focusing on sort of end of process compliance
because we have had unfortunately a rash of projects where certain benefits particularly public realm benefits were promised but weren't actually delivered. Um and that's not in keeping with what we you know approved or let's say at BCDC or what was approved at board. Um
so we're trying to strengthen that muscle as well. And I would say that of course uh while the citywide uh effort is focused on efficiency I would say particularly the urban design division along with the commission right we're focused on efficiency and quality
and how we can get both at the same time. So um we'll we'll come back to I think BCDC process uh after this but we wanted to um sort of give you a bit broader picture of the larger context in
which BCDC is operating so that we can then answer questions and then maybe come back to BCDC specific stuff. >> So I have two questions that don't have to be answered right now because presumably we'll be talking about them. Um but one comes from a BCDC well I have
one comes from a BCDC point of view which is um the planning department postport design review which involves landmarks for example parks department and others. um you know projects as you well know can undergo very significant
changes in that in that arena and um right now it feels like the BCDC review with you in its location is kind of a launchpad but it's not a uh final blessing if you will of the work that would ultimately be done at those
commissions. So I have a question about that because that's very different than how we have worked in the past. So that's question number one. Question number two, having worked and um and you know we welcome to hear this from other commissioners, but having worked on a
lot of projects where let's say financing was contingent on landmarks designation um uh you know um I I just wonder how this
process how and if this process has been tested against um the way large projects are financed today um and whether developers have been consulted on this
this process because I worked definitely worked on projects where um uh all of those approvals had to be in place um before the project could actually go ahead. And so I'm just, you know, I'm
wondering about that relative to board approval, etc. So that's second question I have. Third one, I'm sorry if I'm just throwing. Third one I have is about the procedural um streamlining which Kevin
was talking about. Um I have it's been my experience more recently um that you know when we come to uh your team with a project to review there are many many more people on the call like many more
20 um and um that did not used to be the case and on one hand it's great to have all the voices in the room and to hear from you know the the the tree person and the accessibility person and the so-
and so person. But these meetings also are supposed to take place within an hour. And I find the process to be not streamlined. I find it actually extremely cumbersome because you barely scratch the surface of what it is that you're trying to talk about by the time
everyone's introduced themselves. Um and so I'm I'm wondering if there is stages of that or as you were talking I think rightfully so about you know the competing interests on certain parts of the project. It would be my hope that
some of those those discussions could happen internally and that you know a few people would be tasked with delivering that coordinated message rather than what I' I've um been
experiencing which is u a lot of voices. So those are my three. >> Yeah. I'm just going to piggy back on on David's last one because that was one of the one of my comments because there's there's the voices in the room which usually many of them in that large
setting do not get to speak but there's me also the when they're when you're not in the room together and there's no opportunity for discussion frequently there's conflicting voices and my questioning is really again what is the
process is there a hierarchy And is there someone brokering that internally? >> We talk about a couple of those things from from my from where I happen to sit. I think these I think the points that people raised are are spot on. They're
not um >> they're not things we don't have to like fully utilize but if there's project work >> you know one of these this I think your first point there projects can change a lot over the course review absolutely
and that is one of the pain points we hear like I think universally like when we talk about citywide permitting reform it's anyone who has permitted anything at a city is like how do I how do I handle this this is a giant mess um And that's one thing we're trying to
interrogate right now, especially with, you know, we want to have the right input at the right times. And one way we're hoping to even just conceptually organize that is to say, um, like what's the appropriate level of design for that
input? So you might say, "Oh, at a schematic level of design, I need to know about some bigger picture things that hopefully are now locked in and don't change once I'm at, you know, DDS or even like a course like CDs or whatever." So um the work we're doing on
this citywide reform, right? Have um like a working group of I think it's like 40 or so staff people who represent all the different city permitting teams. So folks can think like ISD, planning department, parks department, s preservation, fire, water and sewer and
we're asking them all those same questions. What do you need to review? When do you need to review it? And we're trying to match everyone to the right state with again with that intent of we're doing the right thing at the right time. Um, I think our next step, our
like immediate next step is to have the the kind of the external financing conversation of like would this potential kind of reshuffleling of the time and place of specific reviews, how does that impact your financing? How does it impact like oh maybe you need an extra sub consultant here and not here
anymore? Like what does that mean? How does it affect yeah the bigger picture negating decisions at like CPA or something that um is an important point. I'm glad you mentioned it is guard and then um some of the more this more procedural point of this streamlined
piece. It's it's something we're wrestling with every day is how how can we give consolidated clear feedback and still preserve some of that like I don't know like studio style conversation where it can really solve problems and
and I think that's the the core thing that we're trying to wrestle with. I know that maybe you speak to a little bit how everybody. >> Yeah, I think there's the competing impulses of making sure that every voice is heard early on so that we get all the
issues on the table. Um but then to your point, what is the right setting? How is that information delivered? Um how can we still have a conversation, right? Um that's useful to proponent teams and to the city and advancing projects. So, I
think we're we're working on that. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that Shauna's point about a broker is an interesting point because um ultimately it comes down to there are choices that have to be made. And I often hear from clients
that they feel like they hear conflicting information that isn't um uh and no one comes down on an answer. um and therefore they find themselves in
a state of paralysis. And so I think that question of like when you have a meeting like that, who who is ultimately um going to look at these issues, two issues that are clearly maybe in conflict with each other and make a
decision and understanding as the proponent um who that person is um I think is actually pretty important. Um so that's that's um something that you know I think that's what you're alluding to. >> No absolutely you know
>> and and I think this has been frankly a perennial problem. You know I experienced it very much years ago on the other side of the table as well. Um you know >> I'm not saying it's new >> right [laughter] which voice do you listen to? Which voices do you not have to listen to? Right. We we're trying to get away from
that and the you know Kevin's point about still trying to have that studio discursive conversation right to be able to go back and forth but ultimately that we as a planning department are speaking with one voice and delivering consolidated deconlicted
feedback to a proponent team prioritized with some hierarchy of what's a must you know versus what is a should or a recommend or a nice to have please consider later in the process And that has to do partially with what is legally required versus what we would really
like to see, you know, to move things uh forward quickly. Um and so, you know, part of being able to do that is is we have to write that part down, right? And that's the other thing. We want to make sure there's a record of what the city is recommending and uh therefore what
proponents are responding to the city with. And so we have found a way to do that, but it is right now a very laborious way. So we're trying to find ways to I think streamline that process. >> Why is that though? Because you know I've I've sat through probably at least
at half a dozen times the presentation of modernization with lawyers, a group of lawyers, with a group of developers, with architects and what's great is the message is consistent and I'm like on board with all of the things that you're saying. It's really quite remarkable how
you identify the issues. But what's harder and harder to do is to defend it now because it's been a while. And I think we're finding we're kind of stepping into the same traps though and it doesn't feel like there's
progress. So I like that BCDC is you know three or five. So that seems clear and but it seems like you know the 20 people on the call shouldn't have an equal voice and there should be a mediator who says okay
there's enough is enough. You know what the thing I I've heard from uh colleagues and developers is that sometimes you don't know when you have a good project in hand and let that one go through now and everything gets the same scrutiny. So it isn't a fair assessment
of uh opportunity to do that thing but we're really trying to get more housing built or and then it gets to be where they miss a economic cycle or something like that which I think is tragic that we can't get out of the way and allow
these projects to move through. So it's not being critical as much as I think what's nice is that you've identified the monetization piece and I think everybody endorses it but at what point is there the accountability to really
move it along and I think it's a a little bit a little bit conflicting or a little bit challenging with us having the three meetings because then the onus becomes on you know on the staff to sort of Q a
project that needs a little bit of extra time. The the onus is then on the staff. But you know with you know that that's it's sort of easier to manipulate our schedule than it is to manipulate your schedule.
>> I do think that with the three meeting or five meeting process if it's frontloaded as it's described here. I think that for projects that have a significant landmarks uh or parks department component um that potentially
significantly alters the project and often does that there should be another move. Um there there there should be there should be a I don't know if it'sformational or if it's a return engagement but there I mean if the massing of the project changes as a
result of of of landmarks review um or parks department uh you know shadows and stuff like that then it's a different project and and and and we're um sort of out of the loop. I know that the city has also had a process sometimes of
joint meetings uh between the landlords commission and BCDC which I wholeheartedly support. Um but I don't know how that fits into this whole thing. Um and so that's you know another question I have.
>> Oh sorry John I was going to bring up the same point that David did. We have had a couple of meetings with landmark with landmarks and they've been fabulous. They've been longer because there are more voices in the room and I think we've accepted and acknowledge that and so this is going to be a longer
discussion. But what's been great is that we have a sense coming out of that meeting of where the sticking points are and I think we're able to hear each other and ultimately I think that the process has gotten better and so maybe that means that we identify from the
get-go that we're going to have this fourth meeting or sixth meeting and we work it into the schedule and we allow ourselves that buffer to be able to have enough information prior to the meeting and then maybe a buffer after to interpret what we've learned from the
meeting and then the process goes on. But I have really liked those combined meetings. >> So can I just paint a picture of um let's say you're in the south end and you find a site you want to put up 100% affordable housing. It's large project
review. So you're dealing with BPD Mo and landmarks. And there's a very real likelihood that you could be doing the whole dog and pony show of the Mo checklist, which means they can tag you at any point around the base. You have BPD with their
urban design staff. And then you have after board approval, you could be sent back to the complete new drawing board with landmarks. >> Is that going to stay? >> I mean, that's I think that's why we're asking the question. I don't
>> Okay. Because like so so then in that example paint yourself as the developer who wants to invest in our city. It's I think we you know we have to look at this through the lens if we're going to solve a housing shortage as one example. We've got to think what incentivizes
development. What's going to send a developer a message to do business in the city. So I think that exactly there's speed, there's efficiency, but then there's still this massive nugget of uncertainty because of the >> other layers. When you really unpack that stuff up there,
>> it's not as simple as that. >> You should see some of the other diagrams, >> but but but that's the hard truth on the table. To really solve this, it's going to require hard decisions about those 20 shrink down to four people. these other
people don't get a voice, they'll get reported back to. I think I mean that's kind of what has to happen so we get this reputation of >> of a cooperative city to do work. >> And I think there's also to your point a choose your own adventure aspect to this
because when I look at at this uh oh sort of one-sizefits-all, forgive me, one-sizefits-all permitting process, like for example landmarks, we've been talking about landmarks. Is there a different chart for projects that are in
a landmarks district perhaps? >> Is there a different chart for projects that are subject? >> And if I'm a developer, I can say, "Okay, I have as of right zoning. I'm going to hit this. I'm going to hit that. I can do that. I can call my investor. We'll get done in 9 months. Let's go." That if that's not happening
and they're just like, "I don't know where I'm going to end up." Yeah. Then you will >> then they then go elsewhere. Right. Right. >> And and I think you're articulating very clearly the uh goals of the larger permitting transformation initiative,
you know, that the mayor has asked all city departments to focus on and to coordinate on, right? And so I think that's where we are heading and there's a lot of work that's happened and sort of hasn't been made public yet so can't talk specifics but
that group you know which involves the planning department is taking a hard look at the sequencing and the relationship of all departments commissions and how to eventually get to that part you know to that point that you're saying as that work is going on we're also I think building the
groundwork for that to happen within this framework right now to make sure that at least at the staff level that we are fully coordinated with Mo during the early phases with landmark staff right we can't yet they can't speak for the
they can't speak for the commission but they at least have a sense of where the commission's going to go and they can help uh inform the process early on. So we've been focused on frontloading the coordination as the thing that we can do right now as we're looking at the
organizational structure and how to make structural changes. I think one of the ways that this feels very different on the inside for staff is we're we're trying to not talk about um like any gi name your department's review. We're trying to say the city of Boston review.
City of Boston review is it's comprehensive. that includes a lot of expertise on a lot of different subject areas. But you know by participating in this in this you know simplified document process you're participating in city of Boston review and that means that the city should speak with one voice. We should be coordinated
internally. We should be working with the project team to create a review plan and not just like sending you off. Oh, I have to go down to 1010. I have to go over to water too or just like you know >> get your own directions like we're going to >> try and more actively partner with that
to make a review plan that makes sense. But it is it is a big change. >> Kevin, I had a question. So, um part of our discussions about article 80 modernization have included these beta tests, you
know, for BCDC. And so we've had discussions and we've said, you know, on paper that sounds like a good idea. Let's try it. Are there any of those kind of experiments happening with this candidate puzzle >> all the time? Even >> and what what are they and what have you
kind of learned? Um, so even this example we were just talking about of um like how many people should be in scoping session, when should the scoping session happen, how what should the content of that conversation be is something we're trying to iterate on a lot. So we've
we've you know in the past the scoping session was something that happened like before you got written feedback or maybe you never got written feedback but you know just early on and it was a little bit of oh whoever's here they're going to try and say something maybe they're nervous to say something because they're going to contradict something maybe
they're going to contradict people anyway. Um and that was challenging. So what we're trying right now is saying let's wait to have the scoping session until after our written feedback is done. Then we send the project team their written feedback. In doing that, we are working together
as a city to remove any conflicts to be really direct and clear and specific so that hopefully the that's kind of the agenda for the scoping session is okay any specific questions on this? Can we clarify things? Maybe you want to problem solve a particular you know design challenge. Um I think we've done
that on a couple projects so far but it's we're we're constantly iterating on things like that. We're iterating on, you know, what's the actual format for our written feedback. What does it look like? How is it itemized? How is it organized? Um, we go back and forth a lot.
>> And maybe how is it prioritized based on that? >> Oh, absolutely. Who's giving it to >> because the person who's giving you the written feedback is the person that you're going to want to get into a dialogue with over what you like and don't like about it. Um and if that's
not the case then that you know creates you know more more confusion. Um, one way I would I I kind of think about this is our work here or at the planning department has been focused in Lady Marization on getting like the planning
department to to work together and say, "Oh, if you have a transportation reviewer, an urban design site reviewer, you know, project manager, you know, an energy efficiency reviewer, they should be talking to each other, not conflicting with each other. Okay, let's work on that problem." Now with the
citywide work, we're widening the ring and saying, "Okay, if the planning department can work together, now we have to work together with all the other city departments, all the other quas and gradually widen it out." So, >> so if you have a so every so going forward, every project would have one pre file.
>> I I mean speaking like that makes sense to me. I I I think a lot of um >> I mean is that what's in the modern is that what's in the modernization? Oh. Um, like one pre-file, meaning >> one pre-file. >> Yeah. >> So, it can be a PDA, it can be anything.
One pre-file and then you immediately can file an LOI >> at the large for large project and small project. That's our that's the way we're operating right now is that a pre-file is one meeting. It is not focused on the content of your design. It's focused on the procedures of your review. >> Okay?
>> Zoning the steps. >> So, then you would file an LOI. You folks would go back form an IG. we then would be able to file the PNF. >> And so the PNF being a sizable effort,
sizable dollar amount likely, we would just do all that at the risk of not having any understanding of how the city feels about the project. We just would launch into that. So this is if uh if you go backward I think this is where that's exactly the challenge we realized
we were introducing that made us start to interrogate these streamlined fields is okay well if we're saying pre-file should be quick and administrative that takes away something that was valuable an early initial conversation on kind of the conceptual design that can give some
certainty to investors with more detailed plans. Okay well what do we what do we do with that? Well, what we're working on right now is maybe one solution is to reduce the level of detail in TNF so that it's cheaper and easier to produce to make it um less
risky to invest to invest to that level of >> that's going to require a real culture shift >> um in the >> not just at the city but I think uh citywide that that will involve a pretty significant culture shift.
Um, and I would try and build that in to your thinking. Um, you know, I can't help but this may sound like a really silly analogy, but we were all talking about travel before we started this meeting. And, you know, getting to this
issue of like the various um the type of project it is, the um what the regulatory agencies are, whether it's in a landmarks district or not, etc. you know, um it it feels to me like, you
know, you're you're on a trip, you know, and you're going somewhere and um you check you you click boxes that say, "I want to be in Center City. Um I want a hotel that takes dogs. I want breakfast included and blah blah blah." And it
gives you your it gives you your options, right? and and um maybe that sounds a little simplistic but in this age when AI is theoretically designing apps for everything um the idea that you would
test this system against different kinds of project like like that's real transparency right that's real transparency you go to a city site you as a developer at any level um you type in various things that you know about
your project and it spits out a road map for you so that when you have your first pre-file meeting, you are already you already have some level of expectation about what the process is going to look like. >> And that's uh I think that's a great
point, David. And that's exactly what we're trying to do in what we call the review plan letter. Um where right after that pre-file, right, we basically issue that road mapap, right? >> Okay. >> From everything we know about the site, the intended program
roadmap that so that hopefully that concurs, right? Because most teams also have land use attorneys who who also do an internal road map and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. But at least we at the city will provide the road map that we see ahead, right? >> Would that have urban design comments in it
>> or anything relating to the design? >> No, that's just the process. That's the process because the concern has been that we have been gatekeeping projects uh behind closed doors for too long and that we encourage proponents to file.
They file something that we try to make as light as possible so that those conversations can be had in public. >> Yeah. So, so basically to make it a baseball analogy, you're getting criticized for being hung up at holding people at first base. So, we're sort of being told run around the bases, but
we'll probably catch you at home. >> Oh, we're we're trying to not make you run around the bases, but do a sequential. You go to first, you go to second, you go to third. There's very clear sort of logic about what you expend to get to each base and how much work and how far the design gets with
that. And I think that also ties into something we want to get into, you know, with uh with the meeting limits, right? We had also talked about how projects get introduced to BCDC. The idea was that we wanted to bring projects as early in the process as possible. And so
that was the idea of bringing folks in when they're at a concept level. And that ties very closely to the PNF being more about massing overall site location program uh the larger moves that a project is making rather than the
architectural expression of every single detail before those big things have been decided or before all the investment has been made in the analysis reports and the impact mitigation. Can we go back to the initial diagram of where BCBC fits in this because it's it's actually
becoming even more significant the impact on our role of this schedule if the PNF is really is basically not a design P. >> It's a it's a concept design. >> It's a but it's a much lighter concept design. And then the next step after
that is the planning review and BCDC review. And and I think I think one of our strengths of course we've been talking about it is is at the concept level but I think the other strength is at a much more detailed design
>> refined refined level and I think um >> I think one of the >> the um offerings of this body is is quite a sophisticated range of insight at that that level. And so I think with
having BCDC kind of cut out of a a lot of that refinement um plan is not to cut BCDC out of that refinement but stagger or not stagger align BCDC meetings with those different
development milestones. So you see it at concept you see it at early schematic you see it at sort of mid schematic before it goes to board. I mean, I'm sort of looking at those first two boxes and in my head I'm trying to think of them as just intake.
>> Like culturally, to your point, David, with the culture shift, if that starts to just feel like a light lift intake versus this cumbersome 300page PNF thing with a massive I got to get link to study this, shadow that, call this, got
if it's just more intake, right? I think that's that could be manageable and then you're into the meat of it with planning a design review which is one of one of the tasks we're doing that we're asking the teams that are working on this like what what could this new PNF look like
is we're um kind of applying our own criteria to like a hypothetical project. So let's make a sample PNF with a hypothetical project. Let's see what this would actually result in. So, one thing I might offer is just kind of help people get out of the web that they've already learned to live with is
sometimes changing the naming of something can do that >> because if you say P&M, it just means something and you're going to spend a ton of time redefining that >> versus if and even pre-file means something. It's like I mean this stuff is baked into our proposals and I can go
back and undo a bunch of things, right? But if it's just intake, I'm just coming up with a different >> almost hit a reset button. It's intake. That doesn't feel like that should feel like an appetizer. That doesn't feel like I've >> spent a main course and then I'm like,
you know, so Jonathan to your point, let me ask you a question. If pre-fil and first filing, let's remove the is intake, right? And that conceptual design review happens at the BCBC level, let's say, right? the project comes
before us and we have to just talk about it, look at it. But then there are additional filings and additional filings theoretically is all those things that used to be the PNF uh but are coming later, right? The the wind studies, the shadow studies, the things that do impact projects, right?
That do change the projects. I guess I'm wondering if the BCDC review is actually straddling if the the point that that is there between first filing and additional filing is either in the wrong place and should be one over
>> um or should be in both places or >> meant to be in both places. >> Is it meant to be? Yeah, >> I figured that it was okay. >> That was not clear to me. Okay. But but actually I do have a a question with that because that process maybe maybe a year right to go through all that
refinement. So if we meet once and then we meet another six months later and then another six months later there's not a lot of opportunity for oh you know the refine like the the there's so much that moves on between the review almost
comes like you know some boards where it's just really we're just kind of it's it's listening and sort of stamping but not really having a lot of substantive changes because we don't you know what we say we doesn't we don't get a chance
to look at it again for another 6 months or >> well if if if if the delay is 6 months or the whole time process is is a year then you know we're not >> bigger >> then this isn't working right so it needs to be in a in a much tighter
sequence and I think Sean I I get your point but I also think that >> each time a project comes before the commission it should be a very substantive review right and [snorts] I think And I do want to move on to like the the BCDC portion of this because I think this is where we can get into
those details and we're running short on time too. >> But I do think that, you know, based one of the things that we heard most from everybody here was like we want to see a project early, right? And be able to make sure, hey, is this massing right before all the money's been spent on everything else, right? Then we want to see it as they've developed that massing
to the next stage of design have meaningful input. when that you know give recommendations on how that should change it's sort of given to staff to follow through and then it comes back as it's the next stage of design to then say okay did that go in the right
direction are you now at the right sort of level of detail how do you take this further even then to the next stage right and so I think that was the um paradigm that we were trying to set up >> a question for you what what was just said
struck this thought it seems as if and I tell me if this perception is incorrect seems as if [clears throat] more and more today than I'm going to say 10 years ago but I'm making that number up there are projects that disappear for
greater lengths of time we'll see something and uh you'll think it's you know it's it's a in your head you'll say that's a that's a a doable project you So, it's a it's a site, it's a scheme, it's a it's
a it's a a proponent that has has the ability to to do this then you won't see it again for 6 months or nine months and I suspect that in most and so my first question is do you think that's reality or is that just my perception
because I think it is reality and I think what's happening is that the the outside influences of financing, and you guys have both brought that up, are much more um um much more input into the
process and timeline than they ever have before. There was a time that we all lived in when [clears throat] there that um financing was available in a in a regular sort of way. A a sophisticated developer or a
sophisticated institution can say this is a good site. This is a reasonable proposal. Um there's a demand for whatever product type it is. I can get it financed. I don't have the finances, but I can get it financed. I'm a credible developer. like I know I know
how to finance this and so the projects moved through moved forward without that financing in place. Now the financing world is so so in such up upheaval if not having totally you know run for
cover >> that um the the the developers and the institutions can't move forward because they have no certainty and and they're seeing expenditure after expenditure after expenditure. They're coming to us and
saying, "How long is this going to take to get entitled?" And we're saying, "I don't know. 12 months, 14, 15 months, I depending what it is, how big it is, how many asks you have to the city, how much mitigation you can offer to the city."
And and they're saying, "Oh my god, that sounds to me like a million dollars." Well, could be a million dollars, you know, and I have no I, the the proponent, have no sense of certainty that I can get financed. I can be the
best developer. >> Spending um you're spending your money. >> You're spending your money. >> Your money and the pressure that that's obviously putting on all of us by that we think is enormous. Um um and um so
that's why I think it's just so important. I think you're raising lots of important points, but that's why I think this whole the success of this whole plan has less to do with us in sitting in this room than it does with
um uh than with the clients and the financing authorities and what they think is going to make sense. So I'm just hoping that that process is happening because It's absolute to David's point, it's uh absolutely critical.
>> So I think that's maybe a great transition into the next part of this because I do think that yes, absolutely that is happening with focus groups that the permitting transformation team, the article 80 uh team is having with community groups, with developers, with
designers, with permitting consultants, with um land use attorneys, right? has helped shape everything that we're doing and and you're echoing, you know, very close >> the comments that, you know, we have all heard and are trying to solve for. So,
it's it's not new, but I did want to sort of try to pivot us to sort of come back to >> uh what have we done so far with BCDC and then where can we go from here? And so we have about 30 to 40 minutes 45 minutes um before we then sort of close
the meeting and and take meander over to the viewers who can join. >> Death I have a procedural question. I know there's at least one person that's put a question into the chat. >> Um so we are uh as this is anformational presentation we were not planning on
necessarily taking public comment. Um I I did see that there was a concern of you know if the early filing is so light what happens and I think there was a implied in some of the comments that there are uh you know it's a multi-stage
process where in order to have a light you know early that means that the stuff that comes later you know there is a second filing right and all of that more detailed information does get filed but it is very much tailored to the pro specific project the needs the impacts
that that project has that's been identified through the early uh city review and public review process. Okay. So if I can you'll indulge me we'll sort of go through this probably
very quickly and then we will uh you know I think continue the conversation you know after tonight certainly. Um, so, uh, quickly the review of the modernization to date, a reminder of the six recommendations that we came up with, what we actually put in zoning,
and then we what we put into the draft bylaws. Uh, discuss what's working well and what could be improved, and then ultimately get to uh, revisions to those recommendations based on our experience and drafting new bylaws for your consideration. So you know this started uh article 80
was first modernization was introduced to BCDC back in September 24 which came a year after the modernization process started which was mostly data collection these focus groups to figure out you know what are the trends and what's you know how long things are taking uh where
are the pain and pressure points for that um we wound up coming to you and Christine if you remember Christina did a lot of that early data mining specifically for BCDC came to you with that to help frame some initial recommendations and operational
updates. Um we discussed uh you know various concerns of those details. They were reformed refined based on your feedback uh which ultimately led to May of 2025 where there was public release of draft zoning where we took two of the recommendations and put them into
zoning. The rest we decided to put into bylaws or otherwise um make operational and procedural so that we could test them more. >> Um and in August of 25 the BCDC zoning updates were adopted by the zoning
commission. Um and then we've been sort of piloting those procedures. It says from September, but really we started back in in August right when we were talking about these reforms. So just a reminder of those six recommendations that came out of the
process again which was both a public process right based on all those focus groups as well as conversations with you all. Six recommendations two for zoning which are the highlighted yellow reaffirming the commissioner's sort of advisory role to the planning department
um in helping to shape better projects and increase the threshold for review most significantly from 100,000 square feet to 200,000 square feet. Um so let's first go through those uh that were put into zoning.
Um so increasing the size threshold for review right from 100 to 200,000 uh and it retains the ability for the chief of planning to tag projects of special significance right so for instance the Holocaust museum was one of those that we said this is actually a small project
it would never have even amounted to 100,000 square feet but we have specific criteria in the zoning that suggest what a project of special significance might entail and that's a conversation that we have early on as planning staff whether
a project uh you know should be designated um for special significance. Um the reaffirmation of the uh recommendations to Boston Planning Department review um we want to make sure that the recommendations
coming out of BCDC are based off of the commissioner discussions and uh established BPD design guidelines. This is what's in the zoning basically. So it's not everything just out of thin air, but it is about sort of uh the design guidelines that we're setting up
as a city and this is also a parallel process that we are working on which is actually publishing citywide design guidelines and it's something that we're going to bring to you in draft form hopefully in the next month or two um for your input on um of course on the public meetings and materials submitted
for BCDC uh and that is not necessarily a unanimous vote for final recommendations. Um there was also uh interest in sorry the detail on composition and structure was sort of solidified with the last zoning and so
it was written in that there were a max of 15 commissioners really 13 full-time commissioners to exeicio at the time that was Diana and Amy uh those two roles have not been filled uh and the way that the zoning is written is that it's sort of at the director's
discretion about whether those roles do get filled and whether addition other folks are appointed as exeicio. Um, and Kyros is still thinking about that. Um, we've also had questions about um folks uh terms, right, for appointments. And
so within the zoning, it does say folks are appointed for three-year terms with a maximum of two consecutive terms. However, members can continue to serve at will until successors are appointed. So after your sort of two consecutive terms uh if
you choose to you can continue to serve um but it is sort of at will there is no designated time period you know of a term. Let's go next. So some of the uh issuing recommendations
right is what was included in the draft bylaws. And so we wanted to make sure that every meeting is a substantive meeting and that's the only way that these med meeting limits work right introduction used to be in some some ways information right here was a
proponent's project and uh every comment that we got was when you come back for subcommittee please bring the following materials right we're trying to be better and and actually provide submission requirements and be better about the information that proponents bring at the start so that we can
hopefully elicit, right, more substantive feedback from the commission at that first review, at the second review, at the third review, right? Uh it needs to be substantive to both direct uh proponents and staff to work with proponents on how to move forward.
Um the text that's in the draft bylaws, and this is something we can revision, uh revise or revisit, uh recommendation for needed modification was meant to be a very serious like we do not like where this is going. this needs to be significantly modified or a
recommendation for further review uh with uh the commission or recommendation for approval in those rare cases where one meeting we love our project so much we wanted to move forward that quickly. Final recommendations are issued at the end of the commission's review in response to the project's evolution
throughout the process. Um and they do not have to coincide with formal documentation such as a DPI or supplemental filing, but they usually happen after that. And so there was the idea that there was two sort of final um two possibilities for final
recommendation needed modification which was meant to be we fundamentally disagree with where this project's at and it needs significant modification or recommendation for approval and with that approval I think our practice has been you need to work on the following
10 things or whatever with the planning department staff as you evolve through the process. Um the sort of working uh way we came up with the meeting limits or sorry initiation of review. uh we do bring
projects in at the first available monthly meeting after a project has both filed their PNF or other initial filing document and had at least one planning department posted public meeting because we don't want BCDC to necessarily be the forum that the public first sees a
project and gets to comment on the project. So we wait until that happens and then we bring a project to BCDC. The meeting limits were set with the idea of projects with one to two buildings uh would be roadmapped to three meetings. Projects with three or more buildings
would be roadmapped to five meetings. But exceptionally large complex projects do get a custom road map. So for instance in the last five months the projects that were introduced to us or came before us that got the custom road map were say the reserve channel master
plan and the Gillette master plan. Um scoping additional sessions. We built this in here because we were concerned about well if I only have three meetings I'm just going to you know wait out the three meetings. We were concerned about non-responsiveness right so additional sessions may be scope for projects at
the discretion of the chief of planning based on our proponents responsiveness to feedback provided during their review. So I think this gives us the flexibility to hold proponents accountable to the recommendations that are made at BCBC and for you all to see
progress with each um meeting. Other recommendations that were contemplated and enacted uh was design committee cohorts. The actually single most consistent concern we heard about
BCDC from the development community and proponents was the continuity of reviewers. There was a perception that you know uh you could get any reviewers on any subcommittee and it would cause confusion and you would get conflicting feedback. And so uh the thought had been
to split the commission into sort of two established cohorts. not the entire commission, but maybe there's a a core group of three uh in let's say subcommittee A and subcommittee B. And then we'd have floaters um in between who could supplement the other committee based on recusals, based on expertise
for the type of project that it was. Um and that the cohort composition would be evaluated on a semiannual basis and that the subcommittee would actually report back to the full commission in a more formal way of saying these are the issues we considered. These were our
recommendations and here's the project map before you. Um, with the three meeting limit and one subcommittee, there wasn't the need to create formal cohorts because there was just one time that subcommittee was meeting with it
where it's been uh more important for that consistency of review or for the extra-large projects or the projects that are divided into five meetings. And we have been managing that um more ad hoc because it's rare that we have those you know Gillette and Reserve Channel in
this case overlapping each other but we do sort of keep a list of the commissioners who were at the previous subcommittee to try to make sure that there is as much overlap from subcommittee to subcommittee with commissioners and you know with our planning uh forecasting we're trying to
make sure that we'll have the right mix of commissioners for those subcommittees and I think we've been successful at that to date um with those larger projects. So, we haven't sort of formalized those um notebooks um and the updates to public testimony
uh where we are taking projects uh public testimony only at a project's introduction to BCDC um but that we're also working to develop and distribute a shared online repository of community feedback. So this is an area where I think as you know we make sure that all
of the public comments that are received by the planning department are available to you. Uh and then of course any public testimony or comments that are addressed directly to BCDC are given to commissioners prior to meetings. Um and
uh we did uh experiment a little bit and the planning department is experimenting a little bit with how do we synthesize all of the public comments, right? Particularly because BCDC has certain interests, right, that um may not necessarily be reflected in most of the public's comments, concerns about uh
traffic or impact on school systems or or other things like that, right? Um, so we're still playing with ways that we can uh distill uh public comment that's most pertinent to the commission's review.
Um, just sort of reflecting where we've been since we started test piloting this. We've had 14 total projects reviewed, including the ones on the list. Uh, and remind me the color coding here, Cyrus. Uh, lightest gray, lightest to darkest
is three meetings, three meeting road map, five meeting road map, custom. Um, so rough roughly. Yeah. >> Um, so reflecting back on the projects that came in and I believe
uh most of these have gone through though 45 Towns and Street is still in process, Gillette is still in process and Reserve Channel is still in process. Um but hopefully delivering both efficiency and positive outcomes
and I think key to this is something that um I found uh exemplified by sort of two projects in particular Roger Bowfort uh which is the affordable and senior housing uh in Jamaica plane where the initial review and the initial
design received by the city was very poorly received by the public, very poorly received by the neighbor, very poorly received by BCDC and by city staff. And in this case, there was a lot of time in between them because after
that poor reception, the city, you know, planning department with Mo sort of intervened and said, you must fundamentally change the direction of this project in order for you to move forward because we do not see a viable pathway for this project. And so city
staff working with the proponent for many months eventually got it to a place where it was substantively more like what you see is the outcome of meeting three um before it came back to you all right for for continued uh review. Um also and and that's frankly because of
the bluntness of the feedback that was given both at BCDC and in those other forums. um uh 35 to 75 MARC came just right as we were starting to roadmap projects but this was sort of more loosely roadmap this this actually had
four reviews not three. Um but at that first meeting right the tower closest to Marsy which is in the bottom left corner I distinctly remember sort of Bill Ron uh launching in very strongly uh against the massing and the configuration of the
building and thinking that it was just sort of fundamentally flawed. We continued to discuss that project and then uh Bill Bill sort of uh spoke up again and said please do not you know mis uh hear or understand me like this
is a serious issue that you must address before coming back. Uh and I think that speaks to both the sort of directness um that we're looking for and you know in order to make you know fewer meetings work and frankly that's also what we're trying to train city staff on on how to
be direct instead of saying well we don't really like what this is doing in these ways. Please come back and study five different alternatives. No, it's here's the principle that we don't think you're meeting. We think that this needs to change and to meet this principle and
here's a couple suggestions on how to do it. But if you have other ideas, please come back and and show us those ideas. >> Looks like Rick has his hand up. >> No, we'll let Why don't you finish that and we'll let you finish. >> We're almost done. >> Yeah.
>> Um so, uh shifting approach to review schedule cadence of reviews. Um so again this goes to the approach to the introductory meeting being as substantive as possible and how to make sure uh that planning review of staff
influences meeting timelines. Uh and then having fewer meetings gives feedback additional weight. There's a a phrase that we've entered around a lot lately in the office. Clarity is kindness, right? Importance of clarity and directness. Like don't hide the
ball. be clear with what we're actually thinking and looking for and what we actually think about a project. Um, so please make it known if you feel strongly about something. So I know that was a lot, but I think we wanted to sort of reset the
conversation, re-engage in I think the reform effort that we've been working on. Uh, and I know the meeting limits have been one of the more um controversial things, but I I I also have to tell you that the reports that we get back from proponents, the
predictability that that brings has been essential to the timeline mapping right overall of a project because that had been identified as the sort of biggest unknown factor in timeline of project timelines was BCBC. And so I think
that's also why we were very emphatic about testing this to see if we could still get the quality outcome with the tighter schedule. >> And I'll [clears throat] just note that thus far all projects that have been given a road map have stuck to it.
>> Yeah. >> In Yes. I would love to open it up for discussion and maybe we can run to 6:45. >> I I'll try to be quick. Uh, Seth, thank you. I I mean, I think you guys have done an awesome job of um, you know,
honing this to Swiss rock perfection. Um, I I guess my comments going to talk about when we're not in the Swiss watch moment. Um, you know, this this will work fantastically in a in a perfect um
capital market. and to go to um comments that were just made a little while ago. Um you know, I think developers are trying to figure out how to function. And so I guess to be really clear, um my
comments are more about two things. One, macro public realm versus micro public realm. you know, when there are objectives that the planning department wants to see for the city versus the normal Swisswatch environment where we
can give everybody everything, how do we thread that needle? How do we uh broker that conversation? And um the second the second point is, you know, at a time where sort of death by a thousand cuts, does does this work?
because it people are sort of in no go no go mode as opposed to um you know let's how do we make it more efficient mode and so I'm sorry I'm just sort of resetting for the less than perfect environment and how it affects
BCDC and whether we need to be more mllified in our comments or you know or if there are visions for macro public realm real realm goals that you want to articulate how we lead the public to some of the compromises that are necessary on the
micro public realm. So anyway, that's the question. >> Can I can I toss something out in response to that? Um, and Kirk, you you and and David, I think, will also remember having been on this for a good
long time. There was a time that uh it didn't happen often, but there was a time that projects came through and the the first meeting the project was strong enough and there was enough confidence
in the design team that um we didn't send it to subcommittee to parse the widths of sidewalks and um all of that. um um uh because we were just we were just confident, you know, that it was a
really good start and and we haven't done that in a very long time. And I think that that's something that like as a commission, especially with a lot of new commissioners um should be aware of that history. um
that that that did that there there was that time when you know four projects would come before us. We were you know swamped with projects and one of them just was by some amazing design team and and and they were on the right track and
uh but we we we were not we were not going to get into the weeds so to speak with them and we approved the project. Um it might be nice for us to just remember that um as we uh look at new
projects particularly ones that are really good or are really good in under the gun or um I mean it doesn't go all the way to solving Kirk's problem uh uh which we've talked I mean not Kirk's problem but the problem that Kirk identifies but it is it's it's worth um
noting that that was the case right David? >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I remember the one I I remember a few of them, but the the Gardener Museum. >> Yeah. >> Remember sitting there and and uh um I can't remember who the chair was. Who was the chair? >> Mike.
>> Mike. Yeah, it was Mike. >> And Mike Mike says, >> "Maybe we should just end this love fest right now." >> Because >> we can pick at little details, but what you've done is beautiful, right? >> And let's improve it tonight. And Harry Cox was the other one by Christian
Science. I remember being in that one too. >> Yeah. >> Well, the most recent one that I remember it was um Melena Cass Steven Chong was a designer. That was a really nice housing >> new parcel >> a really good one. >> That was a really good project. We were
very excited about it. >> I just think that we shouldn't and any of us as commissioners shouldn't be afraid to suggest that after a pre preliminary presentation. the bishop may say no, you know, no, actually, I think we really need to dig into this, but
it's not um and I really do say that for the benefit of some of the new commissioners because that may not be um obvious. Um >> and and to pick up on that, David, I guess to be really literal, what I'm talking about is, you know, we got a
project in front of us right now which is a large abandoned facility in a community. You know, I if we torture it enough and it remains abandoned, the mac the m the macro public realm impacts are tremendous, right? You you
you're living with the same problem you've lived with for, you know, 20 years. If we try to find, you know, thread that needle to a good, you know, macro and micro public realm, it won't be perfect. You know, this is the good versus great,
you know, kind of dialogue we have to have. And it gets harder to have in a bad economic cycle because the consequences are more impactful. But so I I guess to make it pointed what I'm really saying is that somewhere there's
a role for the BPDA to help coales thought so that we can get to a reasonable outcome in all cycles and that meet the macro and the micro objectives of a project. So that was it. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I just want to build on that. I
think you're talk you're talking about the hospital conversion housing. >> Yes. >> One where I think somewhere along the line it and it's a good example, but it's one of those ones you just kind of have to roll up your sleeves. Somebody
does whether it's this body or the BPD in a different sort of setting. But when Lumi sort of used the technique of let's just look at the 2D elevations, I thought that was a very useful tool because otherwise your eyes are just looking at so many different things. But
that's an example of how can we how can we whether it's the BPD or BCDC get into these moments where it's not just verbal comments and expecting that so and so opponent gets it because sometimes you come back and it really hasn't really
gotten they might have danced around the edges but they haven't done that disciplined exercise to say like this fits the meaning this doesn't these are the priorities these are the datms that disciplined exercise well I just want to throw it out like how can that happen
are you suggesting that maybe I'm thinking about the landmarks DCDC joint meetings those are almost like workshops right >> so it's a different format than a traditional subcommittee meeting where someone presents something It's like it's almost an inerson workshop format
where you try and come out with something. Yeah. >> But it but it also gets I think Jonathan back to the clarity is kindness. Like sometimes I think we're we're talking in a language that we understand that the proponent may not really understand. No, we really need you to do this exercise
and come back to us with something very different. >> And here are the tools that we're suggesting you use in order to make that transformation. >> Right. and and in order for this to work and I think what you're suggest suggesting is you know the commission
needs to be confident in the staff's ability to move projects along right to help them succeed and get to where they need to get to for the next meeting. And so the staff has been taking a much more active role in pushing projects and meeting with projects and trying to
identify those like the one you mentioned that needs additional sort of pushing in the form of weekly cherettes right to get them where they need to be. Uh and I think that if we are not able
to deliver then this sort of falls apart. Um, and so I think it's also worthwhile for you all to have the frank dialogue with us about when you think, hey, that was actually brought back too early, like should have taken that further before coming back or um, you
know, maybe there's a way we can be more specific about what's expected by the next meeting so that we're all on the same page. Um, and I think, you know, there's, you know, this might be one that that has been the closest to, um,
you know, I would say, and we use the term sort of like I I did take that to Chyros to say, hey, does this one, uh, should this one be scoped into an additional meeting? The criteria we have right now in zoning is for response or
in the bylaws, is responsiveness. And so even though I think we felt that it's not as good as it should be or will be, they were responsive enough that it was time to get another round of really critical feedback from the commission to
help push this hard. And I think staff and the commission reinforce one another, right, in our roles, being able to say, you know, if if we're saying the same things in different ways, but over and over again, that's what we need to sometimes move projects forward. I I
gotta give us a little bit of credit though on that one because I do think that I don't know anything about the the backstory of that project. Kirk obviously does. Um
but I I think that um it's got to be incredibly fragile from a economic point of view. I I can't even imagine how that gets done, but I want it so badly to get done for all the reasons we've said. And
I I think our our our our review that last night was um don't make it more complicated, make it less complicated. Get this project built. It can be really good, but but
you're missing some of the biggest principles here about the relationship of the land and the building. And and I I think, you know, I you know, there are times I walk out of our meetings and say, you know, we did a good job tonight. Not
everything, but >> we did a really good job tonight. >> I agree. And I I want to just comment on one thing that has happened that I think is very useful that didn't happen prior to the modernization and that is
getting staff reports from planning and urban design that has dramatically changed. >> Um that that didn't happen in the past for the new commissioners and so that's really really helpful. And I'm thinking about how can our commission help
proponents more and I'm really stuck on this notion of a holistic permitting process and I don't know how a permitting process can be holistic when you're coming to DC early on and then you go to landmarks and parks later
>> and that's the thing that I'm really stuck on right now. It would be nice to have the way staff reports to us a perspective from landmarks, a perspective from parks in the early review just so we know or we should be
able to use commissioners to weigh in on what landmarks would say. And I'm thinking Kathy Porteras, we don't really have that perspective >> because I'm not sure she is supposed to deliver that perspective. But I would just think if we're really trying to be holistic and we're really
trying to help proponents, we would just know a little bit more and the more we know I think the more helpful we could be and I don't know if it's a bullet point from you know landmarks like these are the things that are on our minds these are things from parks or shadows
you know like sometimes we hear there's shadow on the emerald so we don't know like are we supposed to worry about that or are we just going to ignore we ever heard that and so I do think some notes from those two entities would really help early on.
>> Mimi, I have a carry on thought on that which is that I believe that we want the staff of the various landmarks commissions to be empowered. >> Yeah. >> And they have different levels of
empowerment depending I mean to be frank depending on the commissions that that they're operating and who's involved. Um I think the idea of getting staff comments uh early uh which then the landmarks
commissioners themselves have have >> and as see as a recommendation from the staff as the comments that were given when the project does come before the commission would be would have a really interesting knock-on effect which is
both to give us the landmarks um comments early but to also establish a kind of baseline for the conversation that will happen later >> and because it is quite inconsistent. >> So I think that that could be interesting.
>> I love that idea too and I like the idea that the reciprocal also could be corrupt >> that they would be getting notes from BCDC early because I do think the power of having those combined workshops is that we heard each other's voices. So, I
like that. I had two other thoughts. Um, and Mimi touched on one of them already, which is, you know, back in the days when, and I think David Carlson might be on this call, you know, we didn't have any introductions. So, we came into a project three pole. We had the we had in
the mail [laughter] we got a booklet that we reviewed before BCDC, but it has been really great to have the stage set and I love the idea that we could even strengthen that. Um, but along those lines, I also would love
to have more um presentations from the city about the global goals. What are what are some of the you know big pieces that are coming out of plan Charles Town you know land south end
whatever what are those big ideas and how can we incorporate them hopefully supporting them but how can we incorporate them into review do I also you know am pretty excited about Diana's role because we don't really know much
about the global goals of open space in the city and again we should be some of the best ambassadors >> for carrying out these um really largecale regional goals because we're seeing these projects all over the city.
And so those two things I would love to push on. I think we're going to see some of the design guidelines soon, but I'd love to add those other two. >> And just to respond, um we fell out of practice of doing those additional, you know, uh larger work that the planning
department is doing. Thanks to Cyrus now being here, we've got a great lineup coming up for you >> that touches on new zoning, planning studies, a wide array of things. >> And I think having those as a regular feature.
>> I mean, now we're a little bit slower than we typically are. But I don't think, you know, just because our agendas are packed that we should forget that these are important pieces. And then um the other piece that I wanted to talk about kind of under the where we can improve. So I love David's comments
about you know the one and done. You know we see a project we see its promise. We're excited about it. We know that the staff can can take it from there. But I also think that seeing these projects early um and then handing
them off sometimes in three meetings can leave a gap on the opposite side. and that is that we don't know what a project ends up being like. And I'm not necessarily well I guess I'm in a debate with myself about whether we want to have moreformational presentations once
a project is set or whether there's another way to communicate with commissioners about where a design ended up. And um and so maybe that's a discussion we keep having. But I think that as commissioners we invest a lot in
these projects and I think that we have a genuine interest in seeing. >> Can I just add up if you like >> under the what's working I do want to mention the squares and streets. Uh I I will say from personal experience I think that's really working for the
simple fact that you can actually get projects of size done zoning compliant which is a big like bonus when you're looking at the length of time it takes and you're done with all these other entitlements, but you still have this
like ZBA eng uh make a detrimental mark on a project. Even the timeline to when a developer can close because usually they have to close once they've gotten all their entitlements and sometimes from the time a board vote to waiting to get on a ZBA docket is lengthy and then you don't
know if the community is going to come out and support or against it. you could still tank you at the end, but the squares and streets has been able to incentivize development of scale, housing of scale that's meaningful in doing it as of right. So, I think that's
that's been a big plus. >> I'd love to chime in being a being new to all of this because it's a lot of information. You all have a lot of language that I am still trying to understand these meeting. Um, but one of the things
that's been lifting up for me when I when we look at the process is it's a domino effect. So, how are folks feeling in the middle and the end and vice versa? Like if we're if we are setting the tone for other things to
happen, is it is it working for them? I don't I don't know is a was has been a fundamental question I have had. Um, and then when a when a project gets to a place of design and and construction, like I I think about art right now, like they want to invite all of you all, all
of us to see this beautiful building, but I'm like once it left, you know, I'm like, I don't know where it sits, but I happen to know those folks. So, the connectivity of the impact that we're making has been a disconnect.
>> That was my next meeting. We >> I feel like there's been this disconnect to what what Sykes is talking about is that the the macro public realm and the micro public realm of there are just some key fundamental things we're all responsible for for our city to truly
grow. I'm not sure if it's always as best as it can align. um when those when time gets in between you don't see the full completion of it. So I think that that is something we can improve upon
>> um to this kind of level of of perspective. Um you know Linda is as you're talking about in terms of this global this globaleness of it you know the fundamental question I ask as someone who's lived in a lot of different neighborhoods is when this last book is
laid what does that mean for the city? um and how our proponents coming into the room, not just from all the the technical things that are going to be beautifully interrogated about, but like the context of the neighborhood and the context of the city. How are you
thinking about this design fitting because that's going to stand the test of time about how the rest of the world looks at us? And I'm not sure we're making that clear beyond the design and all the other filings that have to happen because that is a fundamental values question of Boston is who is the
city going to be for and we're making decisions early on that process and there's many other people making decisions but you know you I know there's buildings that I'm see I'm like that clearly does not fit at all the the Bostonness but clearly there's people
who made that decision. Obviously, we're part of this community at this commission now. But that's a fundamental thing that I think proponents have to really think about as they're entering this on top of all the paperwork at the core of it because I think that will weigh heavy on the decisions that are
made about design and infrastructure and the neighborhood that it sits in. I I hate to cut things off, but we are nearing time. And I think no, I think that point >> a great way to end and also a great sort of charge to us as a commission and as
staff, right, as we as we work through these projects, as we think about how we structure our our reform work, um our work, you know, on the commission and what the what we're actually, you know, here to do and create for the city. So,
um I I I did want to mention that, you know, as we're not taking testimony, uh tonight, uh members of the public who do wish to submit comments are encouraged to do so in writing by emailing them to bcdcoston.gov. And Cyrus, if you could put that in the
chat. Um and uh and we will make sure that those comments get back to the commissioners as this will be a conversation that we continue uh moving forward and we'll figure out the right sort of cadence and venue to uh try to sort of highlight some of what we heard
uh you know we'll we'll put ourselves in the role of a proponent what what we heard what we did um and coming back to you to continue the conversation. >> Thank you for organizing this >> really great the venue the for sure.
>> You know, I mean, it's also great to get out the captain's point to get out into a city that >> um you know, we have had in the past tours of Seapport and walk around that as a commission and talk about the project that we approved. Um, you know,
downtown crossing is the crosshairs at the moment. You know, that's that's a way to have the conversation that you're talking about. Um I know there's there's open meeting and all issues but it is you know we're going to go look at our city you know that so
>> and we're not going to deliberate anymore >> sound beautiful >> well thank you everyone and I think we need >> a motion to adjourn back to save the day hand okay I'm gonna call
on all commissioners perk sites here. Yes. I >> David Manfred. >> Yes. >> Danielle Joey. >> Yes. >> A Phyllis Smith. >> Yes. >> David Nagiro. >> Yes. >> Catherine Morris. >> Yes.
>> Jonathan Garland. >> Yes. >> David Hassini. >> Yes. >> Easley. >> Yes. >> Myself. Mimi. Yes. We are adjourned. >> All right. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. Take care. But maybe she'll be